WMC Update 2012

Still 2 questions of curiosity I'll like to hear someone respond to as WMC has not.

The "voluntary" non-motorized area(triangle shaped) Beverly-Bean seen on this map... www.parks.wa.gov/winter/trails/?TrailTyp...ed&Region=3&Park=108
How long would it take to "use" it up skiing, or how long would it take to put down ski tracks on all the skiable terrain in that graphic?

Secondly, in hearing only the restriction of area to snowmobiles, what areas would you designate as sledders only with similar terrain to the proposed closed areas in an equitable amount of acreage?

Thanks for the replies....

As a skier, one of my core purposes of going to the backcountry is to get away from the sound and smell of motors which we otherwise have to deal with almost all of every day. I loathe and despise the experience of encountering motor vehicles after miles and hours of effort trying to get away from them.

However, the sledders who have joined the thread are definitely holding their own, asking very logical questions and representing their user group well. It's revealing that there really are possible changes which are not zero-sum or exclusionary, such as:

1) More non-motorized snow parks

2) (Kind of ironically) greater use of sled access to wilderness boundaries by skiers so they can practically get to more non-motorized land

3) Figuring out better enforcement and self-enforcement of laws that are not disputed, such as no motors in wilderness

4) Better awareness by skiers of places that have just melted out enough to filter sledders but still have lots of snow. There is not much that is more fun than Easton in the early summer at exactly the right moment.

[In personal experience I may be spoiled since I mostly go N and W of Baker, rarely seeing sleds except perhaps invaders from the great white north at times. In my actual experiences coming across sledders such as on Easton, the sledders have always been very considerate, even turning off motors as we have gone by on descent.]

I'm having a hard time getting behind the WMC initiative as it applies to the Van Epps/Fortune/Teanaway.  As a longtime Kittitas County skier, these are the home hills.  Frankly, the proposed closures are not much skied during the winter.  The issue is access - few skiers have machines and the rest of us are generally unwilling to slog up the valley bottoms to get to the goods.  There are some early season tours before the roads are snowed in but after that, it is just to far to go.  When the roads melt out in the spring, these areas become viable venues again and the snowmo's have largely quit or gone elsewhere.  I just don't see much user conflict here.  

I have stronger feelings about the situation around Blewett.  Here we have a mix of official and voluntary non-motorized areas.  The official closures seem generally respected but occasionally poached, probably by the same wilderness-riding miscreants we all seem to hate.  I have less experience with the voluntary closures but at least on Road 800 along Wenatchee Ridge, machines have been rare, particularly since the signing campaign mounted during Todd Stile's tenure with Cle Elum District.

I remember, dimly, the meetings in the late 90s that led to the voluntary closures.  Facilitated by the Cle Elum District's Tim Foss, skiers, dogsledders, snowshoers and snowmobilers gathered, pored over maps and identified areas important to each user group.  Areas designated for non-motorized use were typically close to plowed roads to allow easy access. The Forest Service did not have the will to officially close new areas to motorized use so voluntary closures were adopted as an achievable compromise.  Perhaps it is time to revisit this process and, this time, come up with boundaries with teeth.      

 

Interestingly there were/are only around 35000 registered snowmobiles in WA.

Do you know where this data comes from? Is it licensing data?

Also, access points are an important piece of the puzzle and may be a place where both communities could work together. Its the reason why the Teanaway area seems to be less contentious than Blewett - skier access in the winter isn't great, so there's less 'competition' for the space.

Travertine's got a good point, this does not have to be zero-sum. If both groups had a few more places to park close to the goods in the winter, especially if they weren't placed too close together, that might naturally reduce the pressure. Using sleds for better access may even be part of the solution.

I'm having a hard time getting behind the WMC initiative as it applies to the Van Epps/Fortune/Teanaway.  As a longtime Kittitas County skier, these are the home hills.  Frankly, the proposed closures are not much skied during the winter.  The issue is access - few skiers have machines and the rest of us are generally unwilling to slog up the valley bottoms to get to the goods.  There are some early season tours before the roads are snowed in but after that, it is just to far to go.  When the roads melt out in the spring, these areas become viable venues again and the snowmo's have largely quit or gone elsewhere.  I just don't see much user conflict here.  

I have stronger feelings about the situation around Blewett.  Here we have a mix of official and voluntary non-motorized areas.  The official closures seem generally respected but occasionally poached, probably by the same wilderness-riding miscreants we all seem to hate.  I have less experience with the voluntary closures but at least on Road 800 along Wenatchee Ridge, machines have been rare, particularly since the signing campaign mounted during Todd Stile's tenure with Cle Elum District.

I remember, dimly, the meetings in the late 90s that led to the voluntary closures.  Facilitated by the Cle Elum District's Tim Foss, skiers, dogsledders, snowshoers and snowmobilers gathered, pored over maps and identified areas important to each user group.  Areas designated for non-motorized use were typically close to plowed roads to allow easy access. The Forest Service did not have the will to officially close new areas to motorized use so voluntary closures were adopted as an achievable compromise.  Perhaps it is time to revisit this process and, this time, come up with boundaries with teeth.      

I've been trying to understand the voluntary part of those areas. Was the orignal idea that certain times of year or only, as you stated, the lack of will by FS. I could see, like you mentioned, times when it's more logical for skiers to trek and hit spots in a day when the sleds would volunteer to stay out, whereas in the deepest part of the year when it's unlikely that many skiers would do the adventure, then sleds could use it.

I think applying the teeth already available to the wilderness boundary will help in the education of the masses...no one wants to lose a $10k sled and then a $5k fine on top of that Which could be a good hit of revenue for the FS to help enforcment.

[size=6pt]*edited to cleanup quote - Marcus*[/size]

I agree with Travertine and JimH. Snowmobiling and skiing are nearly orthogonal uses of the land. Snomos trash the snow for skiing and aren't very nice to be around if you aren't on one. (Try it sometime, snomers...you'll see)

But this isn't a zero sum game. Pow west of the crest gets wrecked by rain and the temps LOONG before its tracked out. The question is accessibility to the terrain with "the goods." If non-motorized folks had better access to non-motorized areas (such as wilderness) there would not be these conflicts. It is in the interest of both snomo-ers and non-motorized folks for there to be better access. To the degree that we can work together it will be more likely to accomplish our aims.

I appreciate that yammadog, ruffy and newtrout have posted here and are debating this issue in what seems like good faith.

As a skier, one of my core purposes of going to the backcountry is to get away from the sound and smell of motors which we otherwise have to deal with almost all of every day.  I loathe and despise the experience of encountering motor vehicles after miles and hours of effort trying to get away from them.

However, the sledders who have joined the thread are definitely holding their own, asking very logical questions and representing their user group  well.  It's revealing that there really are possible changes which are not zero-sum or exclusionary, such as: